June 10, 2011

The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense

It wouldn't hurt if people chipped in, I guess; on the other hand the US gets a 3% boost in standard of living from having the world's reserve currency as their own, so it may wash out contributionwise.

The US wasting its resources of bogus spending is the problem, not the military.

Brits and French in the campaign against Daffy have been pathetic. How they were ever to repel the Russians is beyond me. Their armed forces are about to be reduced to ceremonial guards and marching bands to be used exclusively on national holidays.

We're concerned they're not carrying their own weight in defending themselves against the dire threat posed by....Libya?

Maybe it's not a question of too little European support of current wars, but too much American willingness to meddle by force of arms around the globe. And yes, I know Libya is a NATO-led operation, but the US could certainly just say no.

What will we find to do as a World Hegemon that has retired? Gates and Panetta are the team that explains away our military being cut by two thirds as a wonderful new experience. The UN will be there for us. But it will not be so wonderful for the border States who will be the first to be invaded. So long Texas . And at the same time Obama demands that we give away US Missile defense secrets. This will better assist Iran and Venezuela in blackmailing and killing us.

The EU cannot afford to fund both their socialist welfare state AND their own defense...."

Since well over half the US budget consists of social entitlements, we can't either. On the sane note, if we can't destroy some medieval goat herders with AK-47s, maybe we should follow the Swiss military model. Along with reinstating the Neutrality Act.

NATO was an American invention to defend Western civilization against the vast communist conspiracy.The Soviet Union crumbled. So now what?The United States Government has not done a good job of explaining to "the Europeans" why NATO in some form is still needed and why it would be in their interest to update and maintain the alliance.As it is, it looks a lot like NATO is just "a cockboat following in the wake of the U.S. man-o-war," and "the Europeans" might reasonably question why they should keep supporting that.

and "the Europeans" might reasonably question why they should keep supporting that.

I'm all for bringing the overwhelming majority of our forces home. "the Europeans" on the other hand, especially those clustered around US installations, squeal like stuck pigs when there's talk of all that American servicemember money leaving their area.

"At the same time, the world is much, much better off now that the Europeans don't want to spend money on "defending" themselves."

Says who and according to what standard? It seems to me we're just blundering about the world creating death and devastation, to no good or justifiable purpose.

Gates' whole statement is bullshit, as it is America that has been dominating and directing NATO operations to fulfill its own agenda. If they're actually threatening now to withdraw from NATO actions--I'm skeptical--it's only because Congress is giving Obama heat for violating the law in conducting his current war without Congressional approval.

Brits and French in the campaign against Daffy have been pathetic. How they were ever to repel the Russians is beyond me. Their armed forces are about to be reduced to ceremonial guards and marching bands to be used exclusively on national holidays.

Now let’s not get carried away…PRIOR to the collapse of the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) the European Forces were much more robust. Britain fielded 4-plus divisions in BAOR (Strong Brigade Groups) and France fielded four plus divisions (Strong Brigade Groups) in Germany and both contributed several hundred fighter-bombers to the “mix.” Though not mentioned in your posting, realize this, 60% of the forces that were facing the WTO in “The Next War in Europe”-who knew it would REALLY be bombing Belgrade- were GERMAN! So, prior to 1991 the Europeans DID have strong combat forces…or “strongish” combat forces.

Well technically, either France or Britain could still make good on the Thatcher boast to cause Russia more ruin in one day than they suffered in all of WWII.

The question comes down to: what constitutes a 'strong defense', and against what?

The money spent by some of these countries is not, on the face of it, inconsiderable. On paper, inventories of high-tech weaponry in Britain, France, particularly Germany, are not inconsiderable, leaving aside the comparison with the US, Russia, China.

The general theme I find is: these militaries are weaker than they look because of a lack of parts, maintenance, adequate personnel. Somehow the money isn't getting where it needs.

The nukes are prohibitively expensive for the UK and France. Regular forces are getting underfunded. The question is: are they better 'defended' by having a nuclear umbrella that threatens armageddon on anyone who pushes them too far-- or by having a conventional military that can occasionally ride shotgun with the US?

Someone had to pay for defence, so the Europeans could afford their socialist ways.

I had a great time from 1965-1968"defending" Europe, stationed in France and England, as part of the 513th Tactical Airlift Wing. I went all over Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East at taxpayer expense. Almost got married.

The money spent by some of these countries is not, on the face of it, inconsiderable. On paper, inventories of high-tech weaponry in Britain, France, particularly Germany, are not inconsiderable, leaving aside the comparison with the US, Russia, China. ON PAPER, mayhap…but Britain ran thru a large portion its stock of “Storm Shadow” ALCM’s within the first week of the Libyan War/Conflict/Time-Limited Kinetic Military Action. They fired about ~50 and that was somewhere between 30-50% of their holdings. NO WAR is going to consume 100 or fewer Storm Shadows! They imply don’t have the munitions, they and the French were relying on the US to provide the VAST MAJORITY of the Precision Strike capacity.

The general theme I find is: these militaries are weaker than they look because of a lack of parts, maintenance, adequate personnel. Somehow the money isn't getting where it needs.

The nukes are prohibitively expensive for the UK and France. Regular forces are getting underfunded. The question is: are they better 'defended' by having a nuclear umbrella that threatens armageddon on anyone who pushes them too far-- or by having a conventional military that can occasionally ride shotgun with the US? Not so true with US forces, being involved in 2 on-going conflicts has forced the US to focus on parts, training, and maintenance. The Europeans have focused on accession strength and R&D. Troops, in barracks, are a jobs program as is the R&D, and limited procurement. When they deploy to Afghanistan or Iraq, the force, as a whole suffers, as the Europeans divert funds from Operations and Maintenance, to support for the limited number of troops actively engaged in combat.

In a post-Cold War World, the ability to deliver nuclear weapons is a diminished asset. Russia is very unlikely to target any European nation, and the “Unofficial Rule of the Road” is that Nuclear Powers don’t use Nuclear Weapons against Non-Nuclear Powers. Now that neither the US nor the Europeans is trying to deter the USSR, but is instead beating up on conventionally armed opponents, who have no nuclear weapons, to me, it is clear that a CONVENTIONAL FORCE is much more useful than a Nuclear Deterrent.

We'll always need some overseas bases like Ramstein, but what Gates said was a half century overdue. The Euros built their Socialist Utopia because the didn't have to worry about defense.

bgates said...

Rumsfeld and Bush were concerned about Iraq, where America was fighting a war without NATO.

I believe Dubya and Rummy wanted NATO participation in Iraq.

rdkraus said...

Dream on.

We have a Dem in office.Before him it was a Repub.Before him it was a Dem.

Any of these Zeroites ever even talk about bringing troops home from Germany, Japan, So. Korea, etc?

Rumsfeld did a lot to bring US troops home, especially from Germany and Korea. Our forces in both places used to be measured in divisions and are now measured in brigades.

Robert Cook said...

"At the same time, the world is much, much better off now that the Europeans don't want to spend money on "defending" themselves."

Says who and according to what standard? It seems to me we're just blundering about the world creating death and devastation, to no good or justifiable purpose.

My God, he may be right. At least where Little Zero is concerned. I have yet to hear a good reason for Libya.

But, of course, he's talking about the War on Terror. God forbid, we defend ourselves.

Gates' whole statement is bullshit, as it is America that has been dominating and directing NATO operations to fulfill its own agenda. If they're actually threatening now to withdraw from NATO actions--I'm skeptical--it's only because Congress is giving Obama heat for violating the law in conducting his current war without Congressional approval.

As I said above, the Euros had no problems with the arrangement for 50 years.

This is some sort of gamesplaying that's going on.

At the CIA, Gates, the world's worst intel analyst, was known as The Survivor.

The reason America goes on fighting for Europe has everything to do with the tremendous money that's in it for the American armaments industry. It sure as hell has nothing to do with defending American "little guys."

@Joe: Well and good. But the larger question is: if Europe doesn't fear conquest, why should it try to fight wars at all?

As you indicate, the 'force projection' requirements are such, both in sheer expense and in the larger superstructure of capabilities necessary to have it (long-range air transport, shipping, carrier groups, etc.) that there's simply no feasible way for a France or Britain to do much more than send a brigade to ride shotgun with us in an Afghanistan or such. Do we really want them along that bad? Do they really want to come along that bad?

My Cynical But 'Live And Let Live' attitude is: explain to them they are not World Powers. They can just sit our wars out. And in return, they can shut their mouths trying to drag us into wars (Yugoslavia, Libya) they want to do in their backyard because they think they can gloriously succeed at them.

As to Russia: Europe will always be shitting its pants over that threat. Some kind of nuclear umbrella will have to remain. I'm not saying that because I'm some fruitloop who wants to fight over (post-Soviet) Georgia. Far from it. But Western Europe will always want a counterthreat to Russia, and an ad hoc battlegroup of Leclercs, Challenger IIs, and Leopard IIs (formidable as they would be) won't provide the kind of serenity that the thought of smoldering Volgograd under a mushroom cloud will.

The Soviet Union collapsed, but the Russian Empire remains, and Putin is doing what he can do put it back in working order.NATO should have remained the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the former Soviet Republics of Eastern Europe should have been encouraged to form their own METO (Middle Europe Treaty Organization, or whatever) as a medium size power separating the "Big Boys" and keeping them from rubbing up against each other.There are reasons why "the Europeans" should be concerned about "the Middle East" (reaching from Morocco to Kashmir) and should join the fight against the medievalist Islamists, and some organization would be necessary, but a "North Atlantic" problem it is not. Some other alliance should have been formed and explained to the citizens of the countries involved, so that they would support it.

No one believes it is "NATO" that is bombing Libya from F-15's and Predator drones, but the Obama administration has not even explained to us how we came to be there, not to mention why, and folks in Europe and elsewhere may reasonably conclude that this has to be an American problem, and the Americans had ought to take care of it.

why should it try to fight wars at all?.Just because the wolf isn’t at your door, yet, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t fight. Now in the case of Libya we have R2P AND Oil Contracts…you can make your own determination on the basis of your cynicism which really is the driving force…I look at Syria and I look at Libya and conclude it was Oil Contracts, but then I’m a cynic. OTOH, the US faced NO “Existential Threat” from Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, was the Second World War justified?

"The former head of Israel's spy service has launched an unprecedented attack on the country's current government, describing it as "irresponsible and reckless", and has praised Arab attempts to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement."...

""I decided to speak because when I was in office, Diskin, Ashkenazi and I could block any dangerous adventure. Now I am afraid that there is no one to stop Bibi [Netanyahu] and Barak," said Dagan.

Upon leaving his post, Dagan publicly warned against Israel attacking Iran to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In his latest comments, he said that if Israel attacks Iran, it will find itself at the centre of a regional war that would endanger the state's existence. Dagan's intervention is dangerous for Netanyahu because it comes from the right wing of Israeli opinion rather than the left, where the prime minister would expect criticism."

Possibly true about Germany, although their U-Boats patrolled not too far off the Atlantic, and I recall the Japanese directly attacking our military interests.

However, neither Germany nor Japan posed an existential threat to the US. Germany eradicated Poland, and Japan eradicated Korea and Manchuria. Japan merely wanted to prevent the US Fleet from intervening in its acquisition of the Southern Resource Area. Had the US NOT embargoed oil and finances with Imperial Japan, and NOT opposed Japanese expansion, Japan would NOT have attacked the US. Japan nor Germany had any territorial claims against the US. Please note I am NOT a Buchananite, I don’t oppose the US entry into the Second World War, I merely point out that our opponents represented no threat to the existence of or the territorial integrity of the United States. Both Japan and Germany were EVIL and needed to be stopped, but you cannot use the idea of threat to the US to justify the war.

Scott M said...The Zinn's among us would continue to claim that Japan's attack at Pearl was our fault in the first place.In some senses it was. We provoked both the Germans (Lend-Lease, Neutrality Patrols) and Japan (Financial Embargo, Trade, Oil Embargo) into war with the United States. I’m glad we did, but they doesn’t mean we didn’t provoke them into a bad policy decisions on their parts.

Imperial Japan commits some of the worst atrocities in modern history in China. We embargo to protest (notice we didn't attack them in protest). They attack us because of the embargo? And that's our fault?

Imperial Japan commits some of the worst atrocities in modern history in China. We embargo to protest (notice we didn't attack them in protest). They attack us because of the embargo? And that's our fault?..."

Now let's calm down. I don't think you appreciate the complexity of trying to establish a co-prosperity sphere. Sometimes you have to break a few rice bowls to make a it work.

Jamieson...yup. That is one of the reasons Europe can afford socialism. They don't fund a huge army and world wide bases. I support a strong armed forces for the US, but not as the world's policeman. If another Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or USSR shows up in the future, we can deal with it then.

Joe, the Japan thing was interesting. There is a pacifist out there who wrote a paper on what happen in Nov-Dec 1941. We could have avoided war with Japan by just negotiating. Now, this pacifist didn't address genocide by Imperial Japan, but the point is, Japan was no threat to the US. We provoked them to save the peoples who were brutely ruled by them.

The Libya operation has proven the alliance is desperately short of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as aerial refueling planes — all are crucial to modern combat. The United States still is supplying the largest share of all of those to the NATO effort, even thought it pulled most of its strike aircraft out of the operation.

"Most" of its strike aircraft? Which U.S. aircraft are still attacking in Libya? Perhaps he's referring to unmanned drones, but if so that's the first I've heard them called "strike aircraft."

Lucius said: "My Cynical But 'Live And Let Live' attitude is: explain to them they are not World Powers. They can just sit our wars out. And in return, they can shut their mouths trying to drag us into wars (Yugoslavia, Libya) they want to do ..."

Imperial Japan commits some of the worst atrocities in modern history in China. We embargo to protest (notice we didn't attack them in protest). They attack us because of the embargo? And that's our fault?

Are you saying we had a “Responsibility to Protect” the people of the Republic of China? Isn’t that the duty and responsibility of Chiang Kai-shek government, not the United States? The United States endured thru its oil and financial embargo that Japan:1) Collapse as an industrial society within a year of its imposition; or2) Would attack the Southern Resource Area, AND the US Pacific Fleet within 1 year of its imposition; or3) Withdraw from China. We painted the Imperial Japanese Government into a corner, face economic collapse, military coup-as the Kwantung Army would NEVER accept option 3-or attack the United States. I don’t say it’s our “fault” I say the US made the war INEVITABLE.

Joe,WWII was the opening "hot" phase of the "Cold War," as well as sort of a continuation of WWI. I believe the mindset of the "Wise Men" was that Continental Europe would collapse again, even worse than in the 1920's, and this time the Soviet Union would emerge to take over the whole place.

Lance,AC-10 "Warthogs" certainly are strike aircraft, and now they are also using Apache gunships. These are not made in France.

I understand the digs against European 'ceremonial guards' and such, but look, even the Cold War UK Army of the Rhine would be-- against the Warsaw Pact onslaught hammering through the Fulda Gap-- a 'ceremonial guard'.

It's just not feasible for any of these nations to produce militaries on some kind of Washington Treaty 5:5:3 par with the superpowers. Britain can't be a '3' even (navally or in any sense). Not even if it were ran like a more efficient North Korea.

I understand the 'pampered socialist crybabies' meme, but we're talking about differentials of a few regiments. They could cut their entitlements to pauper levels and how much more military might would that buy? And why, short of embracing Fascism, would the European public accept that?

The best they can do is make sure their gendarmeries are well-funded. Maybe they'd be better off canning the nukes and making sure their infantry has enough rounds in their 81mm mortars.

But what in god's name is the point of them spending on a mobile light infantry unless they're going to send it into Third World wars-- which the Europeans don't want to bleed over? Light infantry won't protect you against Tsar Putin.

They need more efficiency in their defense spending, but I can't really blame them for being on the road they're on. They'll have to make a few hard choices, but mostly it's about coming clean about realities.

NATO is a legal fiction. We should say it, they should accept it, and once that's clear, the status quo won't really change in any drastic way.

Well Lucius, as I was told from 2001 that the US was engaged in Wars of “Choice” and that the neither Taliban nor Hussein represented NO “Existential Threat” to the US and therefore war was illegal and immoral, I simply like to point out that the United States has NOT faced an ‘existential threat” since 1776….possibly 1861, if you want to define it somewhat differently.

So NO, Germany from St. Peter Port Guernsey to St. Petersburg USSR, from NordKap to North Africa represented NO “existential threat” to the United States. My point is, It’s OK to fight in wars that don’t represent an existential threat. The US has been fighting them for over 150-200 years.

As to Hitler and his Dritte (Sp.) Reich he represented no threat to the territories of either Britain OR the US. V-9’s were only an IDEA, and not an extant one in December 1941.

Well Lucius, BAOR would have given a very good account of itself. Again, the CENTAG commander was a GERMAN…60% of the forces in CENTAG were GERMAN…the Europeans provided a great deal of their own defense 1945-1990. The US contributed 10 divisions and 2 ACR, the Bundeswehr contributed more front-line troops and that’s not counting the Heimatschutz.

I'm a Texan living in London. This topic (general defense, not specifically NATO) comes up in conversation probably more often than any other political topic. There is a disconnect between what the UK thinks it gives and the US gives and what the US thinks the UK gives and we give to western defense. Many Europeans consider it the US's duty to do the heavy lifting. British comments to local news items about Gates's remarks take Gates to task for not appreciating how much the British support us. This problem isn't going away anytime soon. @Scott M regarding Texas: Yep.

Sofa king...Speaking of Libya, since the unnecessary war there started 3 months ago, all comments by the Obama Regime are that it will remain a terrible and unsolvable "Stalemate". That is the signal that our Libyan policy is meant to blockade the Libyan Oil fields in order to spike world oil prices. The time to destroy the US dollar has arrived...Obama needed just one more straw to break the camel's back of the American economy that his Regime started by stopping oil drilling permits in the USA and stop Coal Powered plants. How's that $5 a gallon gas working for you? It eats up way more money than the Tax Cut puts back into American's pockets. It appears our that friendly World Government is at war with the USA and that Obama has all along been installed as its Fifth Columnist here.

No I’m simply putting paid to the idea that a war has to involve an existential threat to be a Just War. Pointing out that a very Just War was fought for reasons that had NOTHING to do with the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of the United States. Poland was fighting for its EXISTENCE, not the US.

Someone mentioned Hitler, Britain and North Africa…so, British Colonies, Egypt, Iraq, are now British Territory, and the fact that Nasser, in Egypt and the Iraqi’s all wanted the British gone, would suggest that Britain was not “defending” sovereign British territory. At best, the Arabs felt the war was between two outside entities, not a war to defend them…in fact, the Nazi Anti-Semiticism and the fact that German was NOT an Colonial Power tended to put the Mufti of Jerusalem, and many Arabs on the side of the Germans.

DUMB are the Frogs and Limey's who didn't stockpile much, but equipped their planes with EURO-racks that only fit the bombs not stockpiled due to funding issues, rather than US compatible racks.

We ran into this constantly during Desert Storm and again later during the patrols of the no-fly zone. I'd hoped the situation had improved, by my friends that made the military a career say the situation hasn't improved much.

@HagarAC-10 "Warthogs" certainly are strike aircraft, and now they are also using Apache gunships. These are not made in France.

In this context, "U.S. aircraft" refers not to aircraft built in the U.S., but to aircraft operated by the U.S. armed forces. And the point is this: the President declared he didn't need a War Powers resolution to continue Libyan operations because U.S. pilots were no longer directly engaging Qadafi's forces. By saying most U.S. strike aircraft have been pulled, Gates is implying that some U.S. strike aircraft have not been pulled. If by "strike aircraft" Gates means anything other than unmanned drones, his statement would contradict that of the President.

P.S.: Only the U.S. flies the A-10. No variant, including the A-10C, has ever been sold to a foreign nation. This has actually been an issue in the Libyan operation, since British Apaches aren't as suited as the A-10 for attacking some elements of Qadafi's ground forces.

P.P.S.: British Apaches, while not built in France, have mostly been built in England by Westland, which is an English/Italian company.

In 25-30 years, or sooner, European NATO members will be part of the Caliphate anyway.

What does Gates expect? Has he been infected with the stupidity of the Obots?

I was in Spain at the time of the 2004 RR depot bombings. The voting shift (8 pts.) to elect the socialists, who promised to get Spanish troops out of the Middle East, was an act of national cowardice -- an incredible moral victory for Islamic jihadists.

Was Japan required to embark on a long-term campaign of imperial conquest? Put simply, did Japan face an extant threat that had to be crushed prior to its invasion of Manchuria in '31?

I’m slow today. Are you asking:1) Did Japan represent a threat that needed to be crushed, prior to 1931? Answer, “No.”; or2) Did Japan have to embark on its campaign of territorial expansion? Answer, “No.”HOWEVER, neither did France, Britain, the United States, or Tsarist Russia all of whom had Colonial stakes in China…and the USSR was annexing Mongolia. As far as Japan was concerned, the problem that the “White” Powers had with their wars was that it threatened THEIR holdings, not the Imperialism per se.Again, I’m not making the Buchananite argument, opposing the embargo…I am merely pointing out that the US Embargo made war INEVITABLE between the US and Japan. Further, that this war was NOT to protect the territory or political sovereignty of the US, Japan had NO designs on US territory, neither did it wish to alter the US Constitution.

It wanted the oil and natural resources of Malaysia, Indonesia, Manchuria, Korea and China. As Malaysia, and Indonesia were already colonies, it seems a bit daft to argue Japan was being “evil” in coveting the loot of prior Imperial Thefts…..Japan’s “evil,” was the brutal nature of its Occupation. Certainly Japan’s occupations killed upwards of 20-30 million Chinese, Korean, Filipino and Indonesian civilians, and that probably “low-balls” the cost of the Japanese Occupations.

You want to parse out the evil of Japan's murderous genocidal campaigns against the territories it already occupied--an evil you readily admit-- from the "evil" they plotted in stealing Dutch, French, British colonies, which you maintain was no more wicked than said powers' taking them in the first place.

Except, of course, that the Japanese would carry out the same genocidal brutality in those colonies they stole as they did in the ones they had already taken.

You know, the British Empire was hardly Assyria, Rome, or the Reich.

Were the North African colonies sovereign terrirtories when Mussolini and Hitler were campaigning for them? Then they were British. I'm Hobbesian about this. When Britian decolonized, great. In WWII their asses belonged to London. Maybe they were better free from London, but they were a hell of a lot better off answering to London than they would be to Berlin.

The Security Dilemma is a circular argument. Is there any evidence to suggest that we would have embargoed oil to Japan without it's atrocities in China?

Again, it's a circular argument. Imperial or Republic, anything any other sovereign body does outside it's own borders can be a threat to any other sovereign body at any time. Asking whether something represents an extant threat seems to imply extant at this time. In other words, a snap-shot of the geopolitical reality rather than a map of trends and forecasts. The latter logically seems to be a better way of accomplishing successful state planning.

If it were up to me, I'd shut down, or shutter, the continental army bases. It would be wise to maintain air bases, but there's no reason the ground troops need to be there in any size. Korea is another matter entirely.

- from the "evil" they plotted in stealing Dutch, French, British colonies, which you maintain was no more wicked than said powers' taking them in the first place.

1) “Asia for the Asians” had a tremendous appeal when the Japanese introduced the phrase….it was appealing UNTIL you got to see the Japanese up close and personal and then it was obvious, that it was “Asia for the JAPANESE and the Rest of You Can Starve!”2) Please explain to me why it was OK for Britain to annex Malaysia, or Hong Kong, or the New Territories, or Burma, but it would have been wrong for Japan to have done so? Or put differently, why would it be WORSE for Japan to ignore the Popular Sovereignty of Malaysians, Chinese, and Burmese than for the British to ignore it?3) What makes Japan’s crimes so bad was NOT “Imperialism” but the brutal nature of the Imperialism. The Filipino’s, the Chinese, the Malaysians, and the Burmese all fervently desired the Japanese Occupation to end, but they did NOT want the RE-IMPOSITION of Imperial Rule, they also fervently desired the end to the British or American Occupation, as well. The difference was that the Japanese made themselves “unpopular” by killing several million innocent civilians, in about 3-14 years!

Not an “extant” threat, an EXISTENTIAL THREAT…sure Britain could represent a threat of vary degrees thru time…I’m not discussing that. Neither Japan nor Germany:1) Would end US Sovereignty, a la Poland or Manchuria; or2) End Us sovereignty over any existing piece of US land, e.g., Samoa, Hawai’i, Wake Island, or Midway island; or3) Seek to alter the political organization of the US, e.g., impose an Emperor or repeal the 12th, 13th, or 14th Amendments.The Japanese sought to destroy the US bases in the Philippines and the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.

Oh, I ruined her to be sure. At the time (junior in high school) I was fairly well-steeped in WWII history simply from the family I was a part of, but didn't know the name Ribbentrop from Adam. A month or so after I started seeing her, my father heard her name or something and asked. She got very uncomfortable.

We didn't inflict anything remotely comparable in human suffering upon them as the Japanese did.

Why shouldn't I cheer for the British Empire?

I don't read history and weep over the intent of powerful nations to take over less powerful nations. In the benign context of an Augustan Rome, or much of the British Empire, I'm rather happy with it.

I grant it's not worth doing now, because the natives are so damned restive.

But until they manage their affairs better, they're going to be under *somebody's* sphere of influence.

Joe,Thank you Smedley Butler….this is a foolish and discredited argument…..

"Discredited" by whom? Certainly not you.

This is the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about, and he was right.

I sorta knew the Pentagon was corrupt, but I didn't realize how corrupt until I read Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. Boyd was told by one of his superiors when he arrived at the Pentagon that their job was to ensure that the flow of money to defense contractors was uninterrupted.

@Scott M: Well, I mean as long as they weren't living in some sort of Wolf's Lair and secretly imbibing the lore of the Fourth Reich or something . . .

--I'm being sort of slightly melodramatic in an ironic way, except of course just a fact like that carries such a weight with it. I daresay it did cause her some suffering. For what it's worth, I hope the relationship was relatively unclouded while it lasted.

- Asking This is the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about, and he was right.

Which represents about 3% of GNP….You might as well starting about the Medical-Industrial Complex next, guiding US Foreign Policy as they represent greater than 10% of GNP….Thank you Smedley for playing, but No it has been debunked, pretty thoroughly by the FACTS…

@Scott M: Well, not to be coy about it then, was Ribbentrop's granddaughter a citizen of the post-Christian/Americanized Europe of the Future that would have gramps turning over in Hell?

I don't know why I ask, really. Don't feel obliged to say. It's just curious, I suppose, how things turn out. Rather different than old Ribbentrop would've imagined, to be sure. Her dating an American would be one of those little 'ironies' in history.

- Asking When were they 'independent' before? And what moral claim does that have against Britain?

Because it says, that Britain, ignoring the wishes of the inhabitants, proceeded to IMPOSE its own rule on them…just like the Japanese. The fact that the British were kinder Burglars, doesn’t make them any less BURGLARS, Lucius….And by 1941 the Malaysians, Burmese, and Indonesians as well as the Vietnamese were ALL agitating for an end to Western Colonial Occupation.

In many circles, in Burma especially, the Japanese Invasion was welcomed…I’m pretty certain that welcomed evaporated once the indigenous populace actually experienced Japanese occupation practice. Really, only in the Philippines did the Japanese face a popular opposition, from the beginning…as a “Commonwealth”-domestically self-governing- from 1936 and an independent nation in 1948, IIRC, the Filipino’s had ALREADY liberated themselves from the “White Man” and really didn’t want to be saved by the “Yellow Men” from Japan.Sure, IF the question is, “Would you rather be ruled by the British, from London, OR by the Japanese from Tokyo?” The answer is clear, HOWEVER, as an American I’d already answered the question in 1783 and opted for “Neither of the above.” I believe the Malaysians and Burmese would have answered in the same manner.

Better if she was married to some dood named “Goldstein” if you ask me.

LOL, touche. I found her on her high-school class's facebook page, but she doesn't seem to have an internet presence anywhere. No biggie. If I learned the extent of my family history later in life, as I'm sure she did, I wouldn't be very public either.

@Joe: in 1948 yoking themselves to the Japanese wasn't really an option for the Philippines, was it?

But God bless us for giving them their independence.

By the way: isn't there *any* sort of moral differentiation for you between the British merrily sitting on their property and leaving the Japanese to their own, versus the Japanese bombing the English to take their helping too?

Besides the matter that, on the whole, longstanding 'thefts' tend to get shaded into something like 'ownership'. Making the British de facto a bit more of a goodstanding claimant than the Japanese.

Or should we wage a Crusade to liberate Constantinople from the Turks?

Scott M said...The Zinn's among us would continue to claim that Japan's attack at Pearl was our fault in the first place.

==============Pretty much on this one, Zinn is right. Once the Euros and Christian "Friends of China" convinced America to do a complete oil and strategic minerals embargo of Japan to "choke them into submission" for wanting a European-like colonial empire - war was inevitable.

Where Zinn is wrong is in his moral equivalency that the war was "equally Japan and America's fault". Japan was far stupider. They went at Empire in Korea, Taiwan, Manchukuo, and China with an inhuman brutality that put the Belgians in the Congo to shame. The Rape of Nanking was obviously intolerable to Christian do-gooders and the Japs were meddling too much in "others" economic interest ponds.The Pearl Harbor strike and also going to war with Britain, Australia dragged in the whole Anglosphere against them. All they needed to do was temper their brutality, pledge they would mess with free countries interests in Asia...and use 'coopertaion treaties" with Thailand, Vichy French Indochina, and Nazi-controlled Dutch East Indies to get all the rubber, tin, coal, and oil needed.Before Pearl Harbor, there was no enthusiasm for for past East Coast Eurotrade & banking interests and Jews.

Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.Mandrake: Oh, eh, yes. I, uhm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.Ripper: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this Earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that 70 percent of you is water?Mandrake: Good Lord!Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.

Before Pearl Harbor, there was no enthusiasm for for past East Coast Eurotrade & banking interests and Jews.

C4, why don't you just start each of your posts with, "it's the Jews' fault" so the rest of us can skip over them more easily. I keep thinking you've got something intelligent to add and then you go all bigoty on me.

No, not really. I, like most people that join social media to find old classmates and such, just wanted to know how some of the girls I dated turned out. The one that ripped out my heart, put it in a blender and hit frappe, for instance, is now fat and lower-class. Her husband's bald and fat.

- By the way: isn't there *any* sort of moral differentiation for you between the British merrily sitting on their property and leaving the Japanese to their own, versus the Japanese bombing the English to take their helping too?

Would it have been BETTER for the Malaysians if the Japanese hadn’t occupied them, or for the Indonesians or the Vietnamese? Sure, a lot fewer of them would have died of starvation or the diseases brought on by malnutrition…that’s what REALLY killed millions, Japanese bayonets only got a few hundred thousand….BUT, that doesn’t make the British/French/Dutch Colonial Occupation Good, only LESS BAD….

And in another, more cynical, realpolitik light the Japanese Occupation paved the way for Independence….The Dutch were humiliated as were the French and British Colonialists, making it far easier for the Nationalists within these nations to achieve their ends.

Look I have no problem with the Second World War, Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo Fire Bombing, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki…I just don’t see the Japanese “theft” of others Colonial possessions as a crime, in and of itself….it’s like complaining that Lemonghello has stolen the DVR you just boosted from Wal-Mart….Burglary is a crime, sure, but so is Shop Lifting. The “crimes” were the Holocaust, and the death by Starvation, Malnutrition, Disease and Brutality of Millions, upon Millions of innocent Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Malaysians, Indonesians, and Chinese.

- C4, why don't you just start each of your posts with, "it's the Jews' fault"

• Wow, you bother reading them?• Still if that’s all he wrote, it would be so dull? Plus, I find it, almost, fascinating, how EVERYTHING or anything is the Juice fault…it’s raining, blame the K!kes, it’s too hot, it’s some Y!d’s fault….World War II blame the Hym!es…there is an art to it you know. Not just anyone could find a way to blame everything onto a group that represents such a tiny fraction of the Planet’s Population.

C-4Before Pearl Harbor, there was no enthusiasm for for past East Coast Eurotrade & banking interests and Jews.

ScottM - "C4, why don't you just start each of your posts with, "it's the Jews' fault" so the rest of us can skip over them more easily. I keep thinking you've got something intelligent to add and then you go all bigoty on me."

How can historical fact be bigotry? There WAS NO enthusiasm for getting America into a war with Germany outside certain groups, that were in the minority. East Coast interests, Jews. And repeating myself, the Anglophiles and UK-aligned economic power brokers that WERE the East Coast Establishment FDR's Administration were part and parcel of.

Even with Pearl Harbor, FDR would have still had massive difficulty declaring war on Germany - had Hitler & Co not stupidly declared war feeling justified for some 20 secret attacks FDR had authorized against German naval craft.

=======================As an aside, the moral obligation that was impressed on the American population in the Aftermath of WWII that it is our duty to "Free People" globally and our absolute duty to "Save the noble people of _____at any military cost, any price in lives. For humanitarian reasons, democracy, freedom, disaster relief, nation-building. To "save our noble friends" by attacking a third nation that is no threat to us and wants no war with us.

That post-WWII fantasy is closing out. Of the US as global cop, savior from genocide or large massacres improperly labeled 'genocide', the global Red Cross staffed by expensive volunteer military. The 'will war to liberate!", the big boy other team members count on carrying the ball for what they as a team demand - while they expend little.

This is another Mars/Venus episode like you have between men and women or between conservatives and liberals. Rational people think if they point out logic to the opponent who uses emotion things will change.

First, the Euroweenies have an infinite ability for denial. Not even when the last European is surrounded by "Turks" will he conclude he needs to use military force. Second Euroweenies take it is a badge of honor that they can't respond to something larger than a soccer riot with a sufficient indigenous military force.

So Gates and Rumsfeld's admonition is like telling an anorexic she is too skinny. It's is translated by the receiver into "you look almost skinny enough" or "you might want to shed a few pounds."

Now who will point out their making use of our medical advancements. Much nicer to benefit from R&D than to fund, test and have it approved. Even up "Nort" in Canada...where they rent specialty hospitals as needed just across the border while negotiating discount drug prices which cost shift onto the US. When we cease to be the place to cost shift to, everyone will suffer.

alas, China has already received that message, which is why it is actively moving against the Philippines and Vietnam to take over the Spratlys Islands, and the Philippines is looking to upgrade their Navy to defend the islands which were divided by international law a few years ago, and denied China owned the entire area.

I sorta knew the Pentagon was corrupt, but I didn't realize how corrupt until I read Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. Boyd was told by one of his superiors when he arrived at the Pentagon that their job was to ensure that the flow of money to defense contractors was uninterrupted.

Rumsfeld was right (how many times will we repeat THAT phrase in the upcoming years, I wonder?), Gates is right, and any US President who doesn't include that in their dealings with Europe isn't acting in the best interests of the country. If we get leaders who are serious about getting our own financial house in order, that will automatically mean scaled-down commitments abroad. I suggest restricting our active relationships to our friends and democracies; everyone else is ON THEIR OWN.